Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

OM PARKASH & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Om Parkash & Ors v. State of Haryana - CRM-79864-M-2006 [2007] RD-P&H 809 (23 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No. 79864-M of 2006

DATE OF DECISION : 29.01.2007

Om Parkash and others

.... PETITIONERS

Versus

State of Haryana

..... RESPONDENT

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

Mr. A.K. Rathee, AAG, Haryana.

The petitioners, apprehending their arrest in a non-bailable offence in case FIR No. 89 dated 1.9.2004 registered under Sections 302/120-B/34 IPC at Police Station Behel, District Bhiwani, have filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the FIR.

While issuing notice of motion on December 21, 2006, interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners subject to their appearing before the trial court and furnishing their bail bonds.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners, who are father-in-law, married sisters-in-law and their husbands, were falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and during the investigation, they were found innocent. Subsequently, now they have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as additional accused. The petitioners have already challenged the summoning order dated 22.11.2006 by filing Criminal Revision No. 2539 of 2006, in which notice of motion has already been issued.

Counsel for the petitioners further states that in terms of the interim order dated December 21, 2006, the petitioners have appeared before the trial court and furnished their regular bail bonds which have been accepted and attested and since then, they have been regularly appearing before the trial court.

In view of the above, without commenting on the merits, the interim bail, granted vide order dated December 21, 2006, is made absolute.

Disposed of accordingly.

January 29, 2007 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.